ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
The proximal ulna dorsal angle (PUDA): a systematic review.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The proximal ulna dorsal angulation (PUDA) is an anatomical feature of the ulna pertinent to proximal ulna fracture reduction and implant design. This systematic review primarily aims to establish normative values for the PUDA through synthesis of the existing literature, with the secondary aim of evaluating methodological variability and identifying sources of heterogeneity across studies. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 2000 and November 2024. Eligible studies reported quantitative measurements of PUDA in adults without pathology. Imaging modality, measurement technique, and risk of bias (assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were extracted and analyzed. Weighted means were calculated and intergroup differences assessed using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference. Results: Twenty-one studies were included, comprising over 2000 ulnae across 3 imaging modalities: computed tomography (CT) (n = 6), lateral radiographs (n = 7), and cadaveric (n = 8). The weighted mean PUDA was 5.8° ± 1.4°. Cadaveric studies reported significantly higher mean (7.8° ± 2.87°), compared to CT (5.2° ± 1.07°) and radiographic (5.1° ± 0.43°) ( Conclusion: This review identified significant methodological heterogeneity across modalities, with radiological methods demonstrating greater reproducibility. These findings underscore the importance for standardization of measurement methodology, clinical practice, and implant design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.